FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Preferences   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  ·  nixdoc.net ·  man pages ·  Linux HOWTOs ·  FreeBSD Tips ·  Forums Forum index » Databases » PostgreSQL PostgreSQL still for Linux only?     Page 3 of 5 [65 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Author Message Aly Dharshi *nix forums beginner Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Posts: 31 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:02 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Joshua, Very well put ! Cheers, Aly. Joshua D. Drake wrote: Quote: Shelby Cain wrote: --- "Uwe C. Schroeder" <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote: The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't see that "their" OS is pretty instable. That may have been true in 1995. However, in this day and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are referring to the non-NT variations. O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However there are a couple of things I know. 1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable. However there is a caveat, it still can not perform under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux or other UNIX variants can. 2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and performs fairly well under load. However it still can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants. The majority of the problem with Windows in these days is people who hire other people with little pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable. A properly managed Windows server can be reliable, can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you feel like you have it when you don't. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Regards, Shelby Cain __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster -- Aly Dharshi aly.dharshi@telus.net "A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend Back to top Magnus Hagander *nix forums Guru Wannabe Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 158 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:08 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Quote: I thank you all for throwing light on the question I asked. [missed it earlier, not been reading that lists mail] Quote: I was exchanging mails with one of the developers on PgFoundry. He made a comment and said 'Is anybody using PostgreSQL on Windows?'. Yes. I know of several fairly large production installations running on win32. I don't have one myself at the moment, though. Quote: I began to wonder, was the Windows version a toy? No. It does *NOT* have the same performance as the Unix version. In some tests it comes fairly close. If your application does lots of connect/disconnects, we *know* it is *always* significantly slower. This can be mitigated by using connection pooling. Write intensive apps are significantly slower, but we hope to have that fixed in 8.0.2. The Windows version is also new. Therefor, one can expect there to be more problems with it. Both performance-wise and stability-wise. Quote: From your views, I can conclude that I must not go near using or deploying PostgreSQL on production Windows servers. Thanks for that information. But I was of the opinion that perfection comes out of practice and that certain crashes and experimentation(s) would lead to a better product adaptation. I personally wouldn't go that far. You should be fine to deploy postgresql on win32. Just not very large installations, and you may need to pay a bit more attention to your backups. Again, there *are* production deployments on the win32 version. Some are pretty large. Several have been running since beta1 (at least one since before beta1) without significant problems. Also, keep in mind that the postgresql community does not have a lot of experience with the win32 port either. So if you run into problem, there aren't as many experienced people around. Yet. Feel free to become one. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq Back to top Keith C. Perry *nix forums beginner Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Posts: 6 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:34 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: Quote: Shelby Cain wrote: --- "Uwe C. Schroeder" <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote: The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't see that "their" OS is pretty instable. That may have been true in 1995. However, in this day and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are referring to the non-NT variations. O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However there are a couple of things I know. 1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable. However there is a caveat, it still can not perform under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux or other UNIX variants can. 2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and performs fairly well under load. However it still can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants. The majority of the problem with Windows in these days is people who hire other people with little pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable. A properly managed Windows server can be reliable, can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you feel like you have it when you don't. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Regards, Shelby Cain __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never** trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org Back to top Joshua D. Drake *nix forums Guru Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Posts: 341 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:37 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Quote: The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never** trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic. Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP. It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL Back to top Keith C. Perry *nix forums beginner Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Posts: 6 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:21 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: Quote: The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never** trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic. Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP. It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL As with all things technology there is an art too it as well- several ways to do things. I don't, for instance, NAT/Port forward public interfaces for Linux hosts because in my experience they can be hardened without much ambiguity to be placed there. Similarly, I don't feel the same is true with most of the windows variants so for security sake increased an network complexity is justified. My point is that along with the performance issues this thread has point out, data security is another reason to consider a non-windows platform to run your production database. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings Back to top Dann Corbit *nix forums Guru Wannabe Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Posts: 149 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:25 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? The beauty of an open source, BSD-licensed project like PostgreSQL is the entire "Who cares?" possibility list. If you have a Windows shop and you have Windows trained personnel, then you can use PostgreSQL. If you have a Linux shop and Linux trained personnel, then you can use PostgreSQL. If you have a FreeBSD shop and FreeBSD trained personnel, then you can use PostgreSQL. I think a picture is starting to form here. Monkey-wrench time... Suppose that I have a 4-way AMD64 Windows system running PostgreSQL and even that runs out of steam. I have added as much ram as the system will hold and the load is still causing problems. Now, I can get an IBM machine running SUSE with a pile of processors and gobs of ram and scale to whatever TPS I need. And the data + schema? Dump from the Windows box, load on the IBM SUSE box. I might even be able to SLONY it over without ever going off line. IOW -- what't the whole point of open source BSD licensed projects? It's that you just do whatever you like to solve the problem in the way that is best for your organization (with your personnel and your hardware and your training and your data). And if you need to scale to somewhere else, then you can do it. It's the best of all worlds. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings Back to top Chris Travers *nix forums addict Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 96 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:51 am    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Jim C. Nasby wrote: Quote: Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that it runs on windows. Ok--- I will admit to a anti-Windows bias. But at least my bias is informed. In addition to my former employment at Microsoft, I have studies both types of OS's in detail. Here are some specific comments I would make: 1) I do not expect PostgreSQL to *ever* perform as well on Windows as it does on Linux. This is primarily due to the fundamentally different emphasis in kernel architecture between UNIX-style and VMS-style operating systems. Windows server applications which are process-based are always likely to underperform. Windows applications ported to Linux are similarly likely to underperform. 2) Windows stability is getting far better, but does still lag behind that of Linux. 3) I think that it is very likely that you might be legally required to get CAL's for Windows Server in order to allow the systems to access PostgreSQL. While this is not enforced by the OS, I don't know whether the EULA requires it (my guess is that it does). PostgreSQL on Windows has 2 uses. It is for developers to play around with, and it is for smaller businesses with few connections to use. One you need to scale, you will probably have to go to Linux, BSD, etc. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) Back to top Alban Hertroys *nix forums Guru Wannabe Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 119 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:58 am    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Joshua D. Drake wrote: Quote: Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP. It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding. Except for the firewall/Nat server, of course :D -- Alban Hertroys ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly Back to top Jeff Amiel *nix forums beginner Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 19 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:54 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? While we run PostgreSQL on Free-BSD for our production systems, we have 'demo' laptop windows XP systems that contain the entire server architecture (application server, database, win32 client, etc). Sure is handy to be able to run PostgreSQL on windows and not have to change anything...... Quote: PostgreSQL on Windows has 2 uses. It is for developers to play around with, and it is for smaller businesses with few connections to use. One you need to scale, you will probably have to go to Linux, BSD, etc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org Back to top Tope Akinniyi *nix forums beginner Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 11 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:19 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Hi all, In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat what the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In the same vein, our computerisation culture is different. I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows. That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL, you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house in Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the operations of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment, peculiarities and experiences. As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give to people what they wants. I think that is the basis of service. I have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit that we have not had any problems so far. Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients' operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on some of the servers. I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS. Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY? Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final blueprint on PostgreSQL. I need your advice on this. 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features of a man. 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: Quote: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run >Windows on their laptops). a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about? b. Is he speaking for PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community? c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable database? d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish? I am not against Linux or any Posix for any reason. In fact one of my two office servers run Mandrake Linux. But I am grateful that PostgreSQL recognises the fact that we all can and will not be in the same boat. So it is good to support many boats. Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows? If not, I think at this stage I can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations. I am just expanding my varieties. I think managing PostgreSQL on OS I desire should be my own duty. The point is that PostgreSQL can be available for what I choose to use it for and where I choose to use it. Managing failure points of my OS should be left to my technical expertise. Well if I can get some support from some sources, fine. Off the topic: --> Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: Quote: I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your windows box >crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of >an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this "shitty" free database >system that's to blame. I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. The company that uses them are up and running; not as if only organisations running DB on Posix are existing. Who blames mySQL or Oracle when it crashes on Windows OS? If PostgreSQL cannot thrive where others thrive, it will be quite unfortunate. You cannot shut yourself indoors because you anticipate a rainfall (that might not come). What would be the empirical basis for our judgement if PostgreSQL is not used on Windows? Crashing MS Office on Windows is a different situation from what you would get running PostgreSQL. I do often witness many utility *NIX applications do crash on our Mandrake server, but not PostgreSQL crashing. <-- I will appreciate your kind response on this before I finally take my decision on whether to continue with PostgreSQL for Windows for now. Thank you all. NB. 1. Magnus Handler's late submission is highly appreciated. 2. I or someone else might have been rude by the post. Sorry to all about that. I accept responsibility for all that. But if you call someone a thief because he stole $1, what do you call yourself when you steal $2? Oh, I was disturbed reading Tony's reaction. Quite outrageous, intolerant and immature. I believe mailing list concept like this is all about education and guidance - Oh, take this way do not take this way. Share from my experience and so on. tony <tony@tgds.net> wrote: Quote: Hear hear!!! This man is a troll if ever we have seen one. .... Excuse me dear sir. There seems to be about 97% of the world that runs Windows that does not give you permission to be rude to a tiny minority who just happen to have written an insanely great database that runs quite nicely on their "hobby" OSs as well as the crap you call home. If you aren't pleased with the postgresql support on Windows don't use it!!! That is your freedom. Ours is to think (maybe wrongly) that it is much better running it on the BSDs and Linux of our choice. That is our freedom. There is nothing egoist about developing a great database server on an OS with a tiny user base. The egoists are elsewhere dear sir, far from the free software developers, in the closed source world. The code is there, it is free - go and improve it. Maybe you need a dictionary to look up the word egoist? Please go and troll over at MySQL. They have a Windows version too and maybe a lot more time and patience for rude people such as yourself. ------- Best regards, Tope Akinniyi CEO ShepherdHill Software Lagos, Nigeria Do not forget: Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Back to top Scott Marlowe *nix forums Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 554 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:22 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 10:19, Tope Akinniyi wrote: Quote: Hi all, Howdy. Glad to have you on the lists. Quote: 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features of a man. That's the first problem. PostgreSQL is new on windows. Quote: 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run >Windows on their laptops). This is the second problem. Windows simply has problems that cause data relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future. Quote: a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about? The PostgreSQL Global Development Group, I'd suppose. That's the core team that makes the big decisions. Quote: c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable database? That would be a bit harsh. It's more a combination of several things. 1: Windows / postgresql is quite a bit slower than unix / postgresql. 2: The Windows port is known to have a few issues with heavy load on Windows. 3: PostgreSQL on Windows is a new port, and therefore needs a bit of a shakedown cruise before anyone can definitively say it's stable, fast and reliable. Quote: d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish? They could, but I'm not sure they would. It's really up to the folks who developed the port to windows to keep it working and up to date. IF some basic core part of postgresql was changed, and that broke the windows port, and no one was willing or able to fix it, then yes, I guess the port might be abandoned. But that's no more likely for Windows than any other semi-obscure platform that postgresql runs on like AIX or SCO unix. Quote: Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows? If not, I think at this stage I can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations. I am just expanding my varieties. Any new port of a database to a new operating system presents the possibility that some corner case that no one has tested before will pop up and corrupt your data at some point. So, from that perspective, PostgreSQL on windows is not considered 100% reliable yet. Not because of a lot of known problems, but because of a lack of heavy testing in a large and diverse group of production environments. Quote: Off the topic: -- Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your windows box >crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of >an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this "shitty" free database >system that's to blame. I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. But those databases have years to get shaken down into shape. PostgreSQL is new on that platform, so caution is a good thing there. Quote: I will appreciate your kind response on this before I finally take my decision on whether to continue with PostgreSQL for Windows for now. I encourage you to keep using it, and contribute in any way you can. PostgreSQL has one of the most active and helpful user communities there is around any open source project. And it's a great database to boot. I never thought your post was a troll, by the way. I just thought you weren't very familiar with the whole "PostgreSQL ported to Windows" set of issues and therefore phrased your questions in ways that made some eyebrows pop up. Welcome to the community! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings Back to top Richard Huxton *nix forums Guru Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 522 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:31 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Tope Akinniyi wrote: Quote: Hi all, In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat what the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In the same vein, our computerisation culture is different. I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows. That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL, you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house in Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the operations of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment, peculiarities and experiences. Not that different from Europe, or I'd guess the U.S. - in many small businesses "computers" mean "Windows". Certainly five year ago customers looked at you funny if you wanted to run on Linux/*BSD. Quote: As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give to people what they wants. I think that is the basis of service. I have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit that we have not had any problems so far. Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients' operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on some of the servers. I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS. Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY? Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final blueprint on PostgreSQL. I need your advice on this. 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features of a man. Nobody can stop you using PostgreSQL. Ever. Or from giving it away, making changes, selling it etc. Quote: 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run >Windows on their laptops). a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about? In an email in the public lists we = Tom Quote: b. Is he speaking for PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community? Official pronouncements from "core" will be marked as such. No-one speaks for the "entire" PostgreSQL community. You're part of that community, just by virtue of downloading a copy and subscribing to the lists. Quote: c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable database? The core of PostgreSQL is the same in both versions. It is the connection to the operating-system that differs. There has been a lot of work put in to get it running on Windows (otherwise it would have happened before version . It will take time to understand how best to adapt to this new environment, and it may be that *nix systems are always better to run on. Quote: d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish? Yes. Short of kidnapping them and torturing them, no-one can force them to work. However, some of them get paid to work on PostgreSQL, and all of them are interested in it. Quote: I am not against Linux or any Posix for any reason. In fact one of my two office servers run Mandrake Linux. But I am grateful that PostgreSQL recognises the fact that we all can and will not be in the same boat. So it is good to support many boats. It can also be bad - the more time spent supporting Windows, the less time is spent working on PostgreSQL itself. Quote: Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows? If not, I think at this stage I can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations. I am just expanding my varieties. Sorry - I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. The code for PostgreSQL is the same in both cases - is that what you mean? Quote: I think managing PostgreSQL on OS I desire should be my own duty. The point is that PostgreSQL can be available for what I choose to use it for and where I choose to use it. Managing failure points of my OS should be left to my technical expertise. Well if I can get some support from some sources, fine. Off the topic: --> Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your windows box >crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this "shitty" free database >system that's to blame. I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. The company that uses them are up and running; not as if only organisations running DB on Posix are existing. Who blames mySQL or Oracle when it crashes on Windows OS? If a crash occurs on a machine, it is always easier to blame the newer element. Especially if the person setting up the system is inexperienced or poorly trained. In Europe and USA there are a *lot* of inexperienced Windows sysadmin's and fewer Unix ones. Traditionally, Unix machines were large and expensive and people looking after them were knowledgeable and well-paid. Also, very few people are using Windows to run "serious" systems by the definitions of some people on these lists. A lot of big, expensive machines have only ever run one of the Unix variants. Quote: If PostgreSQL cannot thrive where others thrive, it will be quite unfortunate. You cannot shut yourself indoors because you anticipate a rainfall (that might not come). What would be the empirical basis for our judgement if PostgreSQL is not used on Windows? Crashing MS Office on Windows is a different situation from what you would get running PostgreSQL. I do often witness many utility *NIX applications do crash on our Mandrake server, but not PostgreSQL crashing. <-- If you have many applications crashing, you probably have hardware problems, a bad installation or run a lot of unstable software. You shouldn't have programs crashing on a server. Quote: I will appreciate your kind response on this before I finally take my decision on whether to continue with PostgreSQL for Windows for now. That's clearly a decision only you can make. Getting replication working on Windows will happen quicker the more people help. If all you want is an off-machine backup, perhaps look at PITR (see manuals for details). Quote: Thank you all. NB. 1. Magnus Handler's late submission is highly appreciated. 2. I or someone else might have been rude by the post. Sorry to all about that. I accept responsibility for all that. But if you call someone a thief because he stole $1, what do you call yourself when you steal $2? Oh, I was disturbed reading Tony's reaction. Quite outrageous, intolerant and immature. I believe mailing list concept like this is all about education and guidance - Oh, take this way do not take this way. Share from my experience and so on. As someone who's been on these lists for several years now, I can honestly say they're among the friendliest and most helpful I've found. One of the problems that do occur from time to time though is with different uses of English from around the world. Here is how your original message will have looked to many people: -- Original message below: commentary in []-- I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? [The people behind PostgreSQL are extremists. Also lazy or misguided] Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. [There is a deliberate neglect of Windows] I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. [The community is lazy, or what they're doing is foolish] Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. [The database/pgadmin are not large projects with a lot of work. ODBC/.Net/OLE projects are not even worthy of mention] No replication tool, no this, no that. [You should all stop what you are doing and work on Windows tools for me] I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only. Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users. We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them. [I don't need you anyway - Firebird is better] Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be shown to be deficient. [PostgreSQL is primarily a Windows application now. People interested in running on *nix should stop being so selfish.] I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. [You are clearly not responsible for your actions, you have all been misguided. Luckily, I am here now and if you'll all stop what you're doing and do what I say then everything will be alright] -- End of original message -- Now, I've been negative in the commentary there - but to many of the readers that is how it will have looked. You clearly didn't intend to cause offence, but on an international list you need to be careful with your choice of words, and allow for the fact that many of your readers will be at the end of a long day of hard work. To many people on the list, it will be the first time they have seen your name. As far as they were concerned you had a Nigerian company-name, with a UK (free) email address and with your first email have criticised the project, its developers, the wider community and their operating-system of choice. They then assumed you were just a student somewhere causing trouble (there are unfortunately plenty of people who like nothing more than "trolling" public lists to cause a fuss). And, if you really want to see PostgreSQL on Windows encouraged, your best bet is to volunteer yourself. PG has only been running on Windows for a couple of months and someone is going to be Nigeria's leading expert on running PostgreSQL on Windows. Would you like it to be you? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster Back to top OpenMacNews *nix forums Guru Wannabe Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 118 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:04 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? Tope, Quote: As someone who's been on these lists for several years now, I can honestly say they're among the friendliest and most helpful I've found. i can certainly echo that sentiment. from what i can tell, Tom in particular (since he's been 'called out' here) has (most of the time ...) the patience and good will of a saint ... you can do a LOT worse (e.g. a 17-yr old "CustSvc" rep @ M$) than having someone like him -- and many others -- here to interact with. in the end, there's lots of good & bad DB software on all platforms. imho, its adoption for business purposes ONLY makes sense if there's strong support for it. that support -- whehter it be 'run time' or 'development' can come from (a) your own org (b) help from others on this list (c) formal support from the likes of Command Prompt (unabshed free plug, Josh) when i wear my casual/individual user hat, i depend on this list <flame> when people actually (bother to) answer my (sometimes misguided) questions </flame> when wearing my business hat, i NEVER deploy a pgsql solution -- or any other db for that matter -- without some internal ((a)) competence/support .... if ONLY to have someone to adequately interact with this list (b), and professionally contracted support (c). just my $0.02 ... richard ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster Back to top Guest Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:57 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? ....it will be the first time they have seen your name... ...with your first email have criticised the project... Check the archives. This poster has been active on the list for awhile. Cheers, Rick Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> To: Tope Akinniyi <topeakinniyi@yahoo.co.uk> Sent by: cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org pgsql-general-owner@pos Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only? tgresql.org 03/10/2005 01:31 PM Tope Akinniyi wrote: Quote: Hi all, In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat what the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In the same vein, our computerisation culture is different. I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows. That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL, you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house in Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the operations of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment, peculiarities and experiences. Not that different from Europe, or I'd guess the U.S. - in many small businesses "computers" mean "Windows". Certainly five year ago customers looked at you funny if you wanted to run on Linux/*BSD. Quote: As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give to people what they wants. I think that is the basis of service. I have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit that we have not had any problems so far. Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients' operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on some of the servers. I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS. Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY? Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final blueprint on PostgreSQL. I need your advice on this. 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features of a man. Nobody can stop you using PostgreSQL. Ever. Or from giving it away, making changes, selling it etc. Quote: 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run >Windows on their laptops). a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about? In an email in the public lists we = Tom Quote: b. Is he speaking for PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community? Official pronouncements from "core" will be marked as such. No-one speaks for the "entire" PostgreSQL community. You're part of that community, just by virtue of downloading a copy and subscribing to the lists. Quote: c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable database? The core of PostgreSQL is the same in both versions. It is the connection to the operating-system that differs. There has been a lot of work put in to get it running on Windows (otherwise it would have happened before version . It will take time to understand how best to adapt to this new environment, and it may be that *nix systems are always better to run on. Quote: d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish? Yes. Short of kidnapping them and torturing them, no-one can force them to work. However, some of them get paid to work on PostgreSQL, and all of them are interested in it. Quote: I am not against Linux or any Posix for any reason. In fact one of my two office servers run Mandrake Linux. But I am grateful that PostgreSQL recognises the fact that we all can and will not be in the same boat. So it is good to support many boats. It can also be bad - the more time spent supporting Windows, the less time is spent working on PostgreSQL itself. Quote: Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows? If not, I think at this stage I can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations. I am just expanding my varieties. Sorry - I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. The code for PostgreSQL is the same in both cases - is that what you mean? Quote: I think managing PostgreSQL on OS I desire should be my own duty. The point is that PostgreSQL can be available for what I choose to use it for and where I choose to use it. Managing failure points of my OS should be left to my technical expertise. Well if I can get some support from some sources, fine. Off the topic: --> Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your windows box >crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this "shitty" free database >system that's to blame. I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. The company that uses them are up and running; not as if only organisations running DB on Posix are existing. Who blames mySQL or Oracle when it crashes on Windows OS? If a crash occurs on a machine, it is always easier to blame the newer element. Especially if the person setting up the system is inexperienced or poorly trained. In Europe and USA there are a *lot* of inexperienced Windows sysadmin's and fewer Unix ones. Traditionally, Unix machines were large and expensive and people looking after them were knowledgeable and well-paid. Also, very few people are using Windows to run "serious" systems by the definitions of some people on these lists. A lot of big, expensive machines have only ever run one of the Unix variants. Quote: If PostgreSQL cannot thrive where others thrive, it will be quite unfortunate. You cannot shut yourself indoors because you anticipate a rainfall (that might not come). What would be the empirical basis for our judgement if PostgreSQL is not used on Windows? Crashing MS Office on Windows is a different situation from what you would get running PostgreSQL. I do often witness many utility *NIX applications do crash on our Mandrake server, but not PostgreSQL crashing. <-- If you have many applications crashing, you probably have hardware problems, a bad installation or run a lot of unstable software. You shouldn't have programs crashing on a server. Quote: I will appreciate your kind response on this before I finally take my decision on whether to continue with PostgreSQL for Windows for now. That's clearly a decision only you can make. Getting replication working on Windows will happen quicker the more people help. If all you want is an off-machine backup, perhaps look at PITR (see manuals for details). Quote: Thank you all. NB. 1. Magnus Handler's late submission is highly appreciated. 2. I or someone else might have been rude by the post. Sorry to all about that. I accept responsibility for all that. But if you call someone a thief because he stole $1, what do you call yourself when you steal $2? Oh, I was disturbed reading Tony's reaction. Quite outrageous, intolerant and immature. I believe mailing list concept like this is all about education and guidance - Oh, take this way do not take this way. Share from my experience and so on. As someone who's been on these lists for several years now, I can honestly say they're among the friendliest and most helpful I've found. One of the problems that do occur from time to time though is with different uses of English from around the world. Here is how your original message will have looked to many people: -- Original message below: commentary in []-- I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? [The people behind PostgreSQL are extremists. Also lazy or misguided] Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. [There is a deliberate neglect of Windows] I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. [The community is lazy, or what they're doing is foolish] Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. [The database/pgadmin are not large projects with a lot of work. ODBC/.Net/OLE projects are not even worthy of mention] No replication tool, no this, no that. [You should all stop what you are doing and work on Windows tools for me] I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only. Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users. We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them. [I don't need you anyway - Firebird is better] Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be shown to be deficient. [PostgreSQL is primarily a Windows application now. People interested in running on *nix should stop being so selfish.] I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. [You are clearly not responsible for your actions, you have all been misguided. Luckily, I am here now and if you'll all stop what you're doing and do what I say then everything will be alright] -- End of original message -- Now, I've been negative in the commentary there - but to many of the readers that is how it will have looked. You clearly didn't intend to cause offence, but on an international list you need to be careful with your choice of words, and allow for the fact that many of your readers will be at the end of a long day of hard work. To many people on the list, it will be the first time they have seen your name. As far as they were concerned you had a Nigerian company-name, with a UK (free) email address and with your first email have criticised the project, its developers, the wider community and their operating-system of choice. They then assumed you were just a student somewhere causing trouble (there are unfortunately plenty of people who like nothing more than "trolling" public lists to cause a fuss). And, if you really want to see PostgreSQL on Windows encouraged, your best bet is to volunteer yourself. PG has only been running on Windows for a couple of months and someone is going to be Nigeria's leading expert on running PostgreSQL on Windows. Would you like it to be you? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq Back to top Jim C. Nasby *nix forums Guru Wannabe Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 241 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:14 pm    Post subject: Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:39:53AM -0600, Doug Hall wrote: Quote: On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:02:10 -0600, Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> wrote: ... but the fact is there's still a LOT of places that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn people off of PostgreSQL. Perhaps someone on the list who knows and uses the different operating systems could set up a lab, to compare PostgreSQL between them. Perhaps the latest Windows Server, a popular distribution of Linux, and Mac OS X? Has this already been done, with regard to performance? There is a perftest project on either pgfoundry or gborg that has been doing performance testing. I think it's all being done on linux right now, but it would certainly be interesting to compare linux, freebsd, and windows. Unfortunately, there's no way to do an apples-to-apples (pun intended) comparison with OS X, since not all of the OS's will run on the same hardware. Linux will run on Power, though, as will OpenBSD. I think FreeBSD's support is still pretty bare, but I'm not certain. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match Back to top Google Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First      Page 3 of 5 [65 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next View previous topic :: View next topic The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:06 am | All times are GMT Forum index » Databases » PostgreSQL Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___*nix|   |___Linux|   |   |___Distributions|   |   |   |___RedHat|   |   |   |___Gentoo|   |   |   |___Suse|   |   |   |___Slackware|   |   |   |___Mandrake|   |   |   |___Debian|   |   |       |___devel|   |   |   |   |   |___Setup|   |   |___hardware|   |   |___embedded|   |   |___networking|   |   |___portable|   |   |___powerpc|   |   |___security|   |   |___development|   |       |___apps|   |       |___system|   |   |   |___BSD|   |   |___FreeBSD|   |   |   |___mail-lists|   |   |       |___Architecture|   |   |       |___Configuration|   |   |   |   |   |___OpenBSD|   |   |___NetBSD|   |   |   |___Solaris|   |   |___x86|   |   |   |___Tru64|   |   |___Tru64 managers mail-list|   |   |   |___AIX|   |___HP-UX|   |___SGI/IRIX|       |___admin|       |___apps|       |___hardware|   |___Apps|   |___Squid|   |   |___misc|   |   |   |___Postfix|   |___Qmail|   |   |___misc|   |   |   |___Exim|   |   |___misc|   |   |   |___Apache|   |___Databases|   |___Oracle|   |   |___Server|   |   |___Tools|   |   |   |___PostgreSQL|   |___MySQL|   |   |___misc|   |   |   |___Sybase|   |___rdb|   |___Berkeley DB|   |___IBM DB2|   |___Programming|   |___shell|   |___C|   |___Perl|   |   |___modules|   |   |   |___PHP|   |___C++|   |___python|   |___Unix internals|   |___Not Unix    |___VMS    |   |___vmsperl    |   |___fr    |   |___de    |       |___Vmsnet        |___TCP-IP multinet        |___pdp-11        |___mail - pmdf  <